Surviving Kingdom of Hawaii
- Thread starter MadMc
- Start date
The most obvious options are a weak, and a much more isolationist US.
However, that's not really interesting as it would be breaking a fly on the wheel ...
However, that's not really interesting as it would be breaking a fly on the wheel ...
Way I see this happening is if the Hawaiian Islands become protectorates of either Russia or Britain. Though this would involve them being under effective control of these nations it could mean that when/if Hawaii gains independence it will be a republic or a kingdom. This could be helped (IMO) if America fails to gain a pacific coastline (or at least only a very small pacific coastline).
How plausable is a Russian Protectorate, i know they had a trading post in the islands, but i think a British takeover would be more possible depending on their reasons for being in the central pacific
It's plausible if they act early enough but I'm not sure how tenable it is in the long-term. Chances are the first conflict Russia got into, especially something like the Russo-Japanese War, would see it lost very early on and not recovered.
The Russian Protectorate is unlikely I know, but if it could be kept a hold of then it would probably follow the same path as a how a British Hawaiian Protectorate would go IMO.
Both of those work. The key factor for Britain securing a protectorate is finding some reason to extend their protection without the USA showing any interest. If the Americans show any interest in establishing a presence - even just a large trading interest - then they likely will hold back as the Americans often showed willingness to support their traders with force, and even if the British could defeat the USA in a war, quite simply Hawaii just wasn't worth risking conflict over.
Which is why I think you need a USA without any/much access to the Pacific, then there's no real contender to a British protectorate over the islands.
Susano
Banned
A Russian protectorate would have two advantages: Firstly, relationships between the USA and Russia at the time were good, even while that is some exaggerated it provided a good base for the two sides coming to an arrangment about the matter. And secondly, should as IOTL Russia lose to Japan, or later get into a Civil War, then Hawaii has a good chance to break completly free, and at that time people would worry too much about the balance to go around grabbing colonies and protectorates...
If there's no competition, why wouldn't the U.K. simply annex the islands? Especially if an anti-British Hawaiian king comes to power, it'd be very easy for the Brits to simply topple him, take over the islands, and install their own governor. Without the US, what other Pacific power is there to check them?
A better bet would be something along Siamese lines-- two or more Pacific powers vie for control of the islands, and the Hawaiians have the good fortune to have excellent diplomats around to play the powers off each other.
A few other options might include the United States maintaining their late 1860s high tariffs on Hawaiian goods, which would damage Hawaii in the short-term, but force them to find other markets, weaken the American merchants on the islands, and lower US interest (something along the lines of the Austro-Hungarian/Serbian "Pig War").
It might also help if King Kalakaua I isn't as much a big spender, and avoids getting both his own personal fortunes and the Kingdom's treasury deep into the debt of Claus Spreckels and other haole.
Because contrary to popular opinion, Britain didn't just annex every non-colonial territory it came across. It always waited for a decent reason - strong trading links, the need to face off France, military advantage. For the longest time, Hawaii offered none of these to Britain. After all, the Americans only annexed the islands in the 1890s, and only properly started trading there in the 1870s, by which time the UK had known about the islands for over 100 years. If they didn't step in before that, there's little reason to suspect they would make a move with even less provocation.
annexation would work, i'm just trying to find ways for Hawaii to stay its own nation, not become a state or territory.
By the way, thanks everyone for the help with ideas.
I disagree-- if the US is out of the picture, there'd be even more agitation for British annexation (or 'intervention', I suppose) of Hawaii. It's comparable to the Uitlander situation in Transvaal-- by the 1870s, the native population was a minority in Hawaii, and the late 19th-century sugar trade boom drew in many rich industrialists who didn't give a fig about the Kingdom. They were often opposed to its policies, to boot. If the US hadn't annexed them, then haole agitation would've led to British annexation.
...from America. If America is denied its Pacific coastline the number of merchants drops a lot, the Americans outnumbered British interests substantially and not because they discouraged British trade (not enough to be a factor, anyway).
The Transvaal is also different as the Transvaal was a matter of integrity to the British - they'd come to South Africa and botched the handling of the Afrikaans, so the Afrikaans left - something which the British denied they had the right to do. It was a given that the British would step into the Transvaal for that reason - they couldn't be seen to be slighted in such a way and not repay the slight with military aggression, it would be a massive loss of face in European politics. If the Transvaal had already existed before Britain moved into the Cape (as a separate political entity I mean) I'd say there'd be a 50-50 chance the Transvaal would have stayed independent up until the Scramble For Africa, and perhaps beyond. After all, the Afrikaans were of Dutch origin rather than English and weren't exactly begging for annexation.
Dole, Spreckels, Good, and others were driven by profits and control, not expansionistic patriotism. Were British annexation to offer the trade policies they wanted, and America not more readily available, they would likely have pursued that option vigorously.
Theo H. Davies, the British commissioner to the Kingdom back in 1873, noted that "many Englishmen by birth are so enamored of the advantages of annexation, that they are ready to advocate for the sake of possible gain, transfer of this territory to the United States." If the English on the island were willing to join the US for their own gain, I don't see why Americans wouldn't go for the reverse. Knock down American mercantile interests, and British interests are likely to increase anyways simply due to the prime land and high profits possible.
There was a plan for a Japanese prince to marry a Hawaiian princess. It didn't go through, but you could change that and a few other things and make Hawaii part of a Japanese protectorate.
Yes, it was in 1881 when King Kalakaua attempted to arrange a marriage between Prince Yorihito and Princess Kai'lani(who eventually became the Crowned Princess and was expected to become Queen after the death of Queen Liliuokalani). Prince Yorihito declined because he already had a marriage arranged with a japanese noble woman, but his half-brother became a possible suitor for her. The princess decided her kingdom wasn't in a desperate need for an alliance, and didn't need to marry for political reasons. (Though the kingdom probably did need it)
